energies

Article
Design Methods of Underwater Grounding
Electrode Array by Considering Inter-Electrode
Interference for Floating PVs
Byeong Gwan Bhang, Gyu Gwang Kim, Hae Lim Cha, David Kwangsoon Kim,
Jin Ho Choi, So Young Park and Hyung Keun Ahn *
Department of Electrical Engineering, Konkuk University, 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu,
Seoul 05029, Korea; bbk0627@naver.com (B.G.B.); rbrhkd00@naver.com (G.G.K.); haelim219@gmail.com (H.L.C.);
davidkskim0324@gmail.com (D.K.K.); shorev@konkuk.ac.kr (J.H.C); sheyen@naver.com (S.Y.P.)
* Correspondence: hkahn@konkuk.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-450-3481




Received: 4 April 2018; Accepted: 16 April 2018; Published: 18 April 2018


Abstract: An optimal design method is proposed in this paper to improve the safety and price
competitiveness of floating photovoltaic (PV) systems. From the standards for grounding by
the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60364, the Electrical Equipment Technology
Standards (EETS) are set up for the grounding resistance to be less than or equal to 10 Ω for high
voltage (above 750 V DC) and extra high voltage (above 7000 V) systems. In order to satisfy this
criterion, a parallel connection of grounding electrodes is essential in the system. Furthermore,
inter-electrode interference should be considered to reflect the resistance increase due to the potential
increase between electrodes. Therefore, in this study, the parallel grounding resistance according
to the distance and number of electrodes, as well as the arrangement method were theoretically
predicted and compared with the measured values. For the first time, the design of grounding
electrodes has been applied to real floating PV systems and is expected to satisfy EETS.

Keywords: floating PVs; underwater grounding electrode array; inter-electrode interference

1. Introduction
As fossil energy depletion and environmental problems increase, interest in new and renewable
energy is increasing [1–3]. Solar energy accounts for a large proportion of the new and renewable energy
sources [4,5]. Currently, large-scale photovoltaic (PV) plants are continuously being installed [6–10].
In addition, policies such as the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in the United States of
America [11–13], Renewable Obligations (RO) in the United Kingdom [14,15] and Renewable Purchase
Obligation (RPO) in India [16,17] encourage the expansion of PV generation [18–20]. In Korea,
the government is trying to increase solar energy by announcing the Renewable Energy 3020
Implementation Plan [21]. This plan includes increasing the proportion of renewable energy generation
by 20% by 2030. However, due to limited land area, it is not easy to secure PV plant sites [22].
Therefore, installation of PV systems of 3000 kW or less on rooftops or on the surfaces of bodies of
water is recommended by awarding a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) 1.5 supply certificate [23].
REC is a kind of incentive for renewable energy generation in order to promote the spread of renewable
energy. In other words, the electricity generated from the photovoltaic module on the water could be
sold by multiplying the weight by 1.5-times the existing price.
In particular, a PV system in which the PV module is installed on a water surface using a buoyant
body is called a floating PV system [24,25]. Floating PV systems are being installed using idle water
worldwide. Currently, the largest floating PV plant of 150 MW is being installed in Anhui, China.

Energies 2018, 11, 982; doi:10.3390/en11040982 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 982 2 of 16

In addition, Korea is installing a total of 280 MW worth of floating PV plants: 100 MW on Seongmin
Lake, 100 MW on Daeho Lake and 80 MW on Goheung Lake. However, because floating PV systems
require a buoyant structure that can operate stably even in unstable environments, such as during the
flood season and typhoons [26,27], the power generation cost is higher than that of PV systems installed
on land [28]. Therefore, many research institutions are conducting research on floating PV systems
and developing technologies to reduce the unit cost [26,27,29]. As with PV systems installed on land,
floating PV systems require grounding facilities to prevent damage from lightning or leakage current.
Globally, the standards for grounding are established by the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC). Ground provisions are detailed in IEC 60364 [30]. In Korea, the grounding method is based on
the Electric Equipment Technical Standards, which require that grounding resistance should be less
than or equal to 100 Ω for low voltages and that grounding resistance should be less than or equal
to 10 Ω for systems above 400 V DC, high voltage and extra high voltage [31]. However, there is no
standard grounding method suitable for floating PV systems. On the one hand, in shallow water,
like reservoirs and lakes, grounding lines could be dragged onto land. On the other hand, in deep
water, such as lakes and dams, it is not easy to install a grounding line on the bottom due to cost
problems compared to land PV systems. Thus, in this study, the arrangement method of grounding
electrodes for safety in floating PV systems was analyzed using the underwater grounding method,
in which the grounding electrode is directly grounded in water to reduce the unit cost of the floating
PV system, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the underwater grounding electrode array for the floating PV system.

Recently, a study on the design of underwater grounding has been published [32], but subsequent
research is still needed. In Korea, in the case of a PV power plant, it is necessary that the grounding
resistance be less than or equal to 10 Ω. However, it is difficult to meet this criterion using a single
grounding electrode. Therefore, multiple grounding electrodes should be connected in parallel and
grounded. When multiple grounding electrodes are connected in parallel, the grounding resistance
increases from the ideal value (the value obtained by dividing the resistance of one grounding electrode
by the number of electrodes) due to the potential rise from the mutual electrode interference [33].
The potential to be increased depends on the length of the grounding electrode, the number of
grounding electrodes and the distance between the grounding electrodes. Therefore, in this paper,
the arrangement method of parallel grounding electrodes was analyzed considering these factors.
Experiments were carried out at the floating PV system in Hapcheon Dam, Korea, where the depth is
approximately 40 m.
Energies 2018, 11, 982 3 of 16

2. Single Grounding Resistance Design

2.1. Modeling of Underwater Grounding Resistance

The underwater region is a structure divided into multiple layers of water with different
resistivities. Therefore, the total grounding resistance can be regarded as a form in which the resistances
with different resistivity are connected in parallel [32]. Each section of water can be roughly divided into
three parts: the part between the water surface and the top of the grounding electrode (ρup ), the part
where the electrode contacts the water (ρelectrode ) and the part between the end of the grounding
electrode and the bottom (ρdown ), as shown in Figure 2. The total water resistivity (ρtotal ) can be
expressed as the sum of the resistivity of each layer, as shown in Equation (1).

ρtotal = ρup + ρelectrode + ρdown

∑ix−=1a h x l ∑zx=k+1 h x (1)
= + +
∑ix−=1a
hx l −∑kx− 1
=i h x ∑zx=k+1
hx
ρx ∑kx− 1 hx
=i ρ x + ρx ρx

In Equation (1), l is the length of the grounding electrode, h x is the distance between layers
and ρ x is the resistivity of each layer. The grounding electrode used in the experiment is a rod-shaped
electrode made of copper. The total grounding resistance can be expressed as Equation (2) [34].

ρtotal 2l
R= ln (2)
2πl d
In Equation (2), l is the length of the grounding electrode and d is the radius of the grounding
electrode. As can be seen from Equation (2), the grounding resistance varies with the length of the
grounding electrode. Moreover, the resistivity of the water can vary greatly depending on the water
temperature and the amount of organic matter present [35].

Figure 2. Model of underwater grounding resistance.

1 1
ρT = = (3)
σT σ25 ◦C [1 + α ( T − 25 ◦C)]
Equation (3) shows the relationship between resistivity and water temperature. α is the
temperature coefficient of electrical conductivity, which increases linearly as water temperature
increases. In other words, the grounding resistance tends to decrease as the temperature increases.
Therefore, for accurate prediction of underwater grounding resistance, the effects of grounding
electrode length, water temperature, installation depth and season should be considered.
Energies 2018, 11, 982 4 of 16

2.2. Single Grounding Resistance Design

Because the length and diameter of the grounding electrode have a large effect on the single
grounding resistance value, a rod-shaped copper grounding electrode with a length of 1.8 m and a
diameter of 16 mm was compared with a rod-shaped copper grounding electrode with a length of 0.5 m
and a diameter of 12 mm. Figure 3 shows the variation in the water temperature of the dam (15 January,
15 April, 15 July, 15 October 2015) at the depth of Hapcheon. The floating PV system in Hapcheon Dam
has a depth of approximately 40 m, so the temperature difference between the water surface and the
bottom is considerably large, especially in summer and autumn. Therefore, the resistivity difference
between the water surface and the bottom is large.

Figure 3. Variation of water temperature by depth.

Figure 4 shows the change in the resistance of the 1.8-m copper electrode and 0.5-m copper
electrode due to water depth measured in the spring of 2016 [32]. In both grounding electrodes,
the resistance increases as the water depth increases, due to decreasing temperature. An exception
to this trend is from the surface of the water to a depth of 5 m, where the resistance decreases with
depth, which is presumed to be due to the different amount of organic matter at this water depth.
Because the resistance becomes smaller at up to 5 m of depth, the installation depth of the grounding
electrode should be within 5 m. The minimum installation underwater thickness of the electrode,
however, should be placed deeper than the ice thickness to protect against the sharp increase of the
resistance due to the resistivity of the ice.
Figure 5 shows the variation in the single grounding resistance of copper and stainless-steel
installed at Hapcheon Dam and Sangju Otae Reservoir every three months from September 2016 to
December 2017. Unlike Hapcheon Dam, the water depth in Sangju Otae reservoir is as low as 3 m.
In order to compare the degree of corrosion over time, a stainless-steel grounding rod with relatively
low corrosion was also installed. The copper electrode was a 1.8-m long, 16-mm diameter grounding
rod, and the stainless-steel electrode was a 1.2-m, 28-mm diameter grounding rod. As a result,
the lowest water temperature drops to 6 ◦ C, and the resistance of the copper electrode shows a
difference of approximately 30 Ω, according to the water temperature. In addition, a comparison was
attempted between the degree of corrosion of the stainless-steel grounding electrode and that of the
copper grounding electrode, but it was difficult to confirm the effect of corrosion because the degree of
corrosion measured within one year and three months was within the measurement error range.
Energies 2018, 11, 982 5 of 16

Figure 4. Variation of resistance by depth.

Figure 5. Variation of resistance with different seasons.

2.3. Parallel Grounding Resistance Design

In the case of a PV power plant, it is necessary that the grounding resistance be less than or equal
to 10 Ω, but it is difficult to meet this criterion using a single grounding electrode. Therefore, multiple
grounding electrodes should be connected in parallel and grounded. The total grounding resistance
(R) due to the parallel connection of the grounding electrode is expressed as Equation (4) [36].

R0
R=η (4)
n
R0 is a single grounding resistance; n is the number of grounding electrodes; and η is the
coefficient of parallel connection. Ideally, the coefficient of parallel connection should be one, but
because the distance between electrodes is not infinite, it is greater than one because of the mutual
interference of the parallel electrodes. Therefore, when the grounding electrodes are connected in
parallel, it is necessary to predict the coefficient of parallel connection to accurately predict the total
grounding resistance. Figure 6 shows the measured total grounding resistance and coefficient of
parallel connection, which changes according to the electrode gap and season, when two 0.5-m
grounding electrodes were installed at a 1-m depth in the floating PV system of Hapcheon Dam.
Energies 2018, 11, 982 6 of 16

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Variation by electrode gap: (a) resistance and (b) the coefficient of parallel connection.

In this experiment, the fall-of-potential method was used to measure parallel grounding resistance,
as shown in Figure 7. In Figure 7, E represents the parallel electrodes and P is the auxiliary electrode
used to measure the potential difference at E. C is the auxiliary electrode used to apply a current.
In this method, the potential difference between P and C is assumed to be zero by providing a sufficient
distance from E. The grounding resistance could be determined by the current flowing from the power
source to water and the potential difference between E and P.

Figure 7. Measurement of parallel grounding resistance by the fall-of potential method

(No. of electrode: three).

The coefficient of parallel connection is the largest in December with the lowest water temperature
and the smallest is in July with the highest water temperature. It can also be seen that as the distance
between the grounding electrodes becomes larger, the coefficient of parallel connection decreases,
and when the distance between the electrodes becomes approximately 10 m, it becomes close to one,
which is the ideal value. However, it is difficult to comply with the requirement that grounding
resistance should be less than or equal to 10 Ω with only two grounding electrodes. Therefore, the
variation in the coefficient of parallel connection was measured by increasing the number of grounding
electrodes. Figure 8 shows the coefficient of parallel connection with a length of 0.5 m while changing
the distance between the grounding electrodes and the number of grounding electrodes.
Energies 2018, 11, 982 7 of 16

Figure 8. Variation of the coefficient of parallel connection by the electrode gap and the number of electrodes.

As shown in Figure 8, as the number of grounding electrodes increases, the coefficient of parallel
connection increases linearly. That is, as the number of the grounding electrodes increases, the mutual
interference between the grounding electrodes increases, and the grounding resistance increases as the
distance between the grounding electrodes decreases. Because of the limit of the wire length used in
the experiment, the maximum gap of two electrodes is 18 m; the maximum gap of three electrodes is 8
m; the maximum gap of four electrodes is 5 m; and the maximum gap of five electrodes is 3 m.

2.4. Arrangement Method of Grounding Electrodes in Floating PV Systems

As the number of grounding electrodes increases, the value of the grounding resistance may
vary depending on how the grounding electrode is disposed. For economic reasons, the number of
grounding electrodes should be minimized. In order to reduce the number of grounding electrodes,
it is necessary to reduce the mutual interference between the grounding electrodes by increasing the
interval among the grounding electrodes. There are three types of arrangements in which the spacing
between the grounding electrodes is minimized: linear, quadrangle or ring types. Ideally, all the
grounding electrodes should be installed in a linear configuration to minimize the inter-electrode
interference between the grounding electrodes, but it may be difficult to install them in a linear manner
because of the conditions of the floating PV system. To compare the required area and maximum
distance of each arrangement type, the distance between the electrodes is defined as d, and the number
of grounding electrodes to be installed is defined as n. A comparison of the arrangements of electrodes
is shown in Table 1.
Based on both the required area and the maximum distance, the quadrangle type is most effective.
In order to calculate the parallel grounding resistance according to the arrangement type, the influence
of interference between each grounding electrode should be considered. For the calculation of parallel
grounding resistance, the arrangement of grounding electrodes is assumed to be an (n × n) matrix.
The general formula for grounding resistance is shown in Equation (5) [37].

V (x) = ρ · F (x) · I (5)

Energies 2018, 11, 982 8 of 16

Table 1. Comparison of the arrangement of electrode.

Type Arrangement Maximum Distance Required Area

Linear ( n − 1) d ( n − 1) d

√
2d (1 < n ≤ 4) d
Quadrangle √ sin(180◦ /n)
2 2 d (4 < n ≤ 8)
..
.

d2 (1 < n ≤ 4) nd2
Ring 4tan(180◦ /n)
4d2 (4 < n ≤ 8)
..
.

In Equation (5), I is the grounding current, V ( x ) is the potential generated when I flows and F ( x )
is a function related to the radius or distance of the grounding electrodes. ρ is the earth resistivity,
and in this paper, it refers to the resistivity of water. When the grounding electrodes are installed,
each installation point is called p1 , p2 , · · · , pn , and points p1 (x1 , y1 ), p2 (x2 , y2 ), · · · , pn (xn , yn ) are
assigned to each installation point based on an arbitrary point (p1 ). The rise in the potential of the k-th
electrode is the sum of the potential rise of the k-th electrode and the potential rise of other electrodes,
as shown in Equation (6).

k −1 n
Vk = ∑ ρF (Sik ) Ii + ρ R f Ik + ∑ ρF (Sik ) Ii (6)
i =1 i = k +1

In Equation (6), Sik denotes the distance between the i-th grounding electrode and k-th grounding
electrode. On the right, the second term represents the potential rise by the same electrode. The first
and third terms represent the potential rise by other electrodes. R f is ρ R , which is related to the length
total
and radius of the grounding electrode. Equation (6) can be expressed by a matrix, as Equation (7).

V = ρFI
   
V1 Rf F (S12 ) ··· F (S1n )
 V2 
  h i  F (S21 )

Rf ··· F (S2n )

(7)
where: V = 
 .. 
 , I = I1 I2 ··· In , F = 
 .. .. .. 
 .   . . . 

Vn F (Sn1 ) ··· ··· Rf

Vn and In denote the potential and current of the n-th grounding electrode, respectively. In this
paper, it is assumed that the potentials of all the electrodes are the same, because all the grounding
electrodes have the same length and diameter.
Energies 2018, 11, 982 9 of 16

   
V1 1
 V2  1
   
 ..  = V  .. 
V=    (8)
 .  .
Vn 1

Furthermore, the total grounding current can be expressed as the sum of the currents of the
grounding electrodes, as shown in Equation (9).
h i
I = I1 + I2 + · · · In = I 1 1 ··· 1 (9)

Equation (5) can be summarized as shown in Equation (10).

1 −1
I= F V (10)
ρ

The parallel grounding resistance is the ratio of the electrode potential to the grounding current.
Therefore, the parallel grounding resistance can be expressed as Equation (11).

V ρ
R= =   (11)
I 1
1
h i  
1 1 ··· 1 F −1 
 .. 

.
1

In order to calculate the parallel grounding resistance of the rod-shaped electrode, the equation for
calculating the potential distribution of the electrode must first be obtained as shown in Equation (12).

ρI 1+e
V (x) = ln
4πkl 1 − e
r s (12)
r2 x2
where, k = 1 − 2 , e = 1 − 2
l l + x2 − r2

In Figure 9, r is the radius of the grounding electrode and l is the length of the grounding electrode.
When two grounding electrodes are connected in parallel, Equations (7) and (12) can be used as shown
in Equation (13).
" # " #" #
V1 ρ f (r ) f (S) I1
=
V2 4πkl f (S) f (r ) I2
(13)
1+e
where, f ( x ) = ln
1−e

Equation (13) is summarized by the equation of current shown in Equation (14).

" # " # −1 " # " #" #
I1 4πkl f (r ) f (S) V1 4πkl f (r ) − f (S) V1
= = (14)
I2 ρ f (S) f (r ) V2 ρ ( f (r )2 − f ( S )2 ) − f ( S ) f (r ) V2
Energies 2018, 11, 982 10 of 16

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of the potential distribution of electrodes connected in parallel.

As the grounding current is the sum of each current, the grounding current is given by
Equation (15).
4πkl
I= (2 f (r ) − 2 f (S))V (15)
ρ ( f (r )2 − f ( S )2 )
Equation (15) can be expressed as the ratio of the potential to the grounding current, and the
parallel grounding resistance of two grounding electrodes can be obtained as shown in Equation (16).

V ρ ( f (r )2 − f ( S )2 ) ρ( f (r ) + f (S))
R= = = (16)
I 4πkl (2 f (r ) − 2 f (S)) 8πkl

In this way, the total grounding resistance of the grounded electrodes connected in parallel can be
predicted when the grounded electrode is installed in a floating PV system with an area of (n × n), as
shown in Figure 10. When the number of grounding electrodes is i in an (n × n) plane, the relationship
between the potential of each grounding electrode and the grounding current can be expressed by the
same matrix expression as in Equation (17).
    
V1 f (r ) f (S12 ) f (S13 ) ··· f (S1i ) I1
V   f (S ) f (r ) f (S23 ) f (S2i ) I 
 2  21   2
V3  = ρtotal  f (S31 ) f (S32 ) f (r ) ··· f (S3i )  I3 
    
(17)
 .. 
  4πkl   .. .. .. .. ..   .. 
 
 .   . . . . .  . 
Vi f (Si1 ) f (Si2 ) f (Si3 ) ··· f (r ) Ii

Assuming that all the same grounding electrodes are used, the potential of parallel grounding
electrode is V = V1 = V2 = · · · = Vi , and the total grounding current is I = I1 + I2 + · · · +
Ii . These properties can be used to predict the parallel grounding resistance (RG ), as shown in
Equation (18).
ρtotal
RG =   −1  

f (r ) f (S12 ) f (S13 ) ··· f (S1i ) 1
 
 f ( S21 )

f (r ) f (S23 ) ··· f (S2i ) 1
 
i   
4πkl
h
1 1 1 ··· 1

f (S31 ) f (S32 ) f (r ) ··· f (S3i ) 1
  (18)
.. .. .. ..  .
   
 .. .



. . . . . 


.
 
f (Si1 ) f (Si2 ) f (Si3 ) ··· f (r ) 1
Energies 2018, 11, 982 11 of 16

Figure 10. Diagram of the electrodes connected in parallel in a plane.

3. Simulation Results and Discussion

3.1. Parallel Grounding Resistance

The single grounding resistance increases as the water temperature decreases. Therefore, in order
to ensure that the grounding resistance is less than or equal to 10 Ω, the design should be based on the
lowest water temperature. Therefore, the parallel grounding resistance was predicted based on the data
from December 2017, when the water temperature was the lowest among the days tested in this study.
The single grounding resistance of the rod-type copper grounding electrode (0.5 m, 12 mm) applied
to the simulation with Equation (1) and (2) is 79.98 Ω · m in resistivity and 130.25 Ω in resistance.
The distance between the grounding electrodes was measured from a minimum of 1 m to a maximum
of 18 m, and the maximum number of parallel grounding electrodes was four. Figure 11 shows the
actual and predicted values of parallel grounding resistance. The predicted value was simulated by
Equation (18). The simulation results show that the mean error between the predicted and actual
values is approximately 5%. In almost all cases, the actual value is higher than the predicted value.

Figure 11. Measured and predicted resistances of electrodes connected in parallel.

The difference of measured and predicted values would come from the non-homogeneous
distribution of organic matter and aquatic organisms. Because grounding resistance was predicted
based on resistivity and water temperature according to the depth of water at a certain point, it is
Energies 2018, 11, 982 12 of 16

thought that the grounding resistance would vary due to the difference in resistivity depending on the
position of the grounding electrode. For this reason, it is necessary to consider an error of 5% when
designing the actual grounding resistance. Therefore, by multiplying the predicted value by the error
coefficient (α =1.05), the error of 5% could be reduced to the maximum error of 1.41%.

3.2. Application to Real Floating PV Systems

If the size of the floating PV system with a maximum length of over 130 m is large enough
that 14 grounding electrodes can be arranged linearly, it can be arranged as shown in Figure 12a.
The simulation value for this arrangement is 9.41 Ω. Furthermore, given an error of 5%, the value was
predicted to be 9.88 Ω.
Next, it is assumed that there is a floating PV plant of a scale that the grounding electrodes cannot
be positioned linearly. If there is not enough distance for linear placement, the grounding electrodes
may be installed at 10-m intervals along the edge of the floating PV system. Assuming that an area
of approximately 1600 m2 is required to install a 100-kW floating PV system, the size of the floating
PV plant is 40 m × 40 m. In the previous experiments, it was confirmed that the coefficient of parallel
connection is close to one when the gap between the grounding electrodes is 10 m or more. With 0.5-m
copper grounding rods, at least 14 grounding electrodes are required to ensure that the grounding
resistance is less than or equal to 10 Ω. The simulation result of the 14 grounding electrodes connected
in a square shape at intervals of 10 m resulted in a value of 9.51 Ω, with a predicted value of 9.98 Ω,
which satisfies the requirement that grounding resistance should be less than or equal to 10 Ω.

(a) (b)

Figure 12. Arrangement of electrodes in a 100-kW floating PV system: (a) linear type (b) and quadrangle type.

However, in a 3-kW floating PV system, the interval between all electrodes cannot be set to
10 m, and thus, the coefficient of parallel connection cannot be minimized. Assume that the area
of the 3-kW PV plant is approximately 36 m2 (6 m × 6 m). Considering the area limitation and the
inter-electrode interference, the gap between all the grounding electrodes should be at least 2 m. If the
coefficient of parallel connection is ignored, 14 grounding electrodes are sufficient. However, in a
small-scale floating PV system, the coefficient of parallel connection is larger than one because the gap
between the electrodes is small. Therefore, more than 14 grounding electrodes are needed. Assume
that 16 grounding electrodes are arranged in a (4 × 4) rectangular shape, as shown in Figure 13a. In this
case, the total area is 36 m2 . The simulation result is predicted to be 11.53 Ω, which does not satisfy the
requirement that the grounding resistance should be less than or equal to 10 Ω. Even if the number of
electrodes is further increased by reducing the gap between the electrodes, the grounding resistance is
not met due to increasing the coefficient of parallel connection. Therefore, in this case, the grounding
is designed using 1.8-m copper grounding electrodes. At the same water temperature conditions, the
resistance of the 1.8-m copper grounding electrode is 47 Ω. If a grounding electrode is installed in six
of the eight edges of a 36-m2 (6 m × 6 m) square as shown in Figure 13b, the resistance is predicted to
Energies 2018, 11, 982 13 of 16

be 9.53 Ω. Considering an error of 5%, it is possible to ensure that the grounding resistance is less than
or equal to 10 Ω.

(a) (b)

Figure 13. Arrangement of electrodes in a 3-kW floating PV system: (a) 16 copper electrodes (0.5 m)
and (b) six copper electrodes (1.8 m).

If applied to a large-scale (MW-class) floating PV system, the area is large enough so that an
optimal design of the underwater grounding electrode array for a floating PV system could provide a
sufficiently low resistance value (under 9.41 Ω), as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Simulation results applied to real floating PV systems.

Underwater
Classification No. of Length of
Arrangement Capacity Electrode Gap Grounding
of Scale Electrode Electrode
(Comparative) Method (kW) (m) (ea) Resistance
(m)
( R G )(Ω)

Linear
Mid-scale (Figure 12a) 100 10 14 0.5 9.41

Quadrangle
Mid-scale 100 10 14 0.5 9.51
(Figure 12b)

Matrix Array (4 × 4)
Small-scale 3 2 16 0.5 11.53
(Figure 13a)

Quadrangle
Small-scale 3 3 6 1.8 9.53
(Figure 13b)

Linear
Large-scale (Figure 12a) Over 100 Over 10 14 0.5 Under 9.41

4. Conclusions
In this paper, a method for the design of the grounding for floating PV systems was analyzed
in order to provide the price competitiveness and safety standards of floating PV systems. A single
grounding resistance was predicted based on water temperature and resistivity. As the water
Energies 2018, 11, 982 14 of 16

temperature decreases, the resistivity of the water increases. Therefore, the grounding system design
should be based on the lowest water temperature. The grounding electrodes should be connected
in parallel to satisfy the regulation of grounding resistance, less than or equal to 10 Ω, which is
the grounding facility standard. In a parallel connection, it is very imperative to notice that the
increase of grounding resistance (single ground resistance divided by the number of electrodes) has
been calculated by considering the mutual interference between the electrodes. Therefore, a method
of predicting grounding resistance in parallel connection, considering the number of grounding
electrodes and the potential increase based on the distance between electrodes, was proposed in this
paper. The most ideal installation method is to minimize the number of electrodes while increasing
their distance as much as possible. In order to minimize the inter-electrode interference, the electrodes
should be installed linearly. Furthermore, for price competitiveness and safety, it is recommended to
use a long electrode (with a smaller single grounding resistance). In this study, a 0.5 m-long electrode
was used. However, with a 1.8-m grounding electrode, the price would be approximately three-times
higher, but the number of electrodes could be reduced to one third. In addition, as the number of
electrodes required is reduced, the gap between the electrodes could be further increased, thereby
reducing the inter-electrode interference, leading to lower RG . In the future, the optimal grounding
design method using long copper electrodes will be studied from the efficiency and economic points
of view. In addition, it is recommended to confirm the degree of corrosion of the copper grounding
electrode to enhance the accuracy of the parallel grounding resistance by including the corrosion factor
during the operation period.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the New and Renewable Energy Technology Program of the
Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP), granted financial resources by the
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Republic of Korea (No. 20153010012060). We would like to sincerely give
our thanks for the help from K-water for the experimental procedures.
Author Contributions: Byeong Gwan Bhang developed his own primary model for the parallel resistance
with the arrangement method focusing on the potential rise by mutual interference of the parallel electrodes.
Gyu Gwang Kim, Hae Lim Cha, David Kwang-soon Kim, Jin Ho Choi and So Young Park added experimental
methods at the test site (Hapcheon Dam) with different seasons. Hyung Keun Ahn integrated the design of
underwater grounding electrode arrays with respect to the safety and size of floating PV systems.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest

References
1. Sahu, B.K. A study on global solar PV energy developments and policies with special focus on the
top ten solar PV power producing countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 621–634,
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.058.
2. Bilgili, M.; Ozbek, A.; Sahin, B.; Kahraman, A. An overview of renewable electric power capacity and progress
in new technologies in the world. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 323–334, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.148.
3. Benson, C.L.; Magee, C.L. On improvement rates for renewable energy technologies: Solar PV, wind turbines,
capacitors, and batteries. Renew. Energy 2014, 68, 745–751, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.148.
4. Giglmayr, S.; Brent, A.C.; Gauché, P.; Fechner, H. Utility-scale PV power and energy supply outlook for
South Africa in 2015. Renew. Energy 2015, 83, 779–785, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.04.058.
5. Girard, A.; Gago, E.J.; Ordoñez, J.; Muneer, T. Spain’s energy outlook: A review of PV potential and energy
export. Renew. Energy 2016, 86, 703–715, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.08.074.
6. Fernandez-Jimenez, L.A.; Mendoza-Villena, M.; Zorzano-Santamaria, P.; Garcia-Garrido, E.; Lara-Santillan, P.;
Zorzano-Alba, E.; Falces, A. Site selection for new PV power plants based on their observability. Renew. Energy
2015, 78, 7–15, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.12.063.
7. Wu, Y.-K.; Ye, G.-T.; Shaaban, M. Analysis of Impact of Integration of Large PV Generation Capacity
and Optimization of PV Capacity: Case Studies in Taiwan. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2016, 52, 4535–4548,
doi:10.1109/TIA.2016.2594283.
8. Marcos, J.; Parra, Í.; García, M.; Marroyo, L. Simulating the variability of dispersed large PV plants.
Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2016, 24, 680–691, doi:10.1002/pip.2719.
Energies 2018, 11, 982 15 of 16

9. Şenol, M.; Abbasoğlu, S.; Kükrer, O.; Babatunde, A.A. A guide in installing large-scale PV power plant for
self consumption mechanism. Sol. Energy 2016, 132, 518–537, doi:10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.035.
10. Zou, H.; Du, H.; Brown, M.A.; Mao, G. Large-scale PV power generation in China: A grid parity and
techno-economic analysis. Energy 2017, 134, 256–268, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.192.
11. Barbose, G.; Wiser, R.; Heeter, J.; Mai, T.; Bird, L.; Bolinger, M.; Carpenter, A.; Heath, G.; Keyser, D.;
Macknick, J.; et al. A retrospective analysis of benefits and impacts of U.S. renewable portfolio standards.
Energy Policy 2016, 96, 645–660, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.035.
12. Schelly, C. Implementing renewable energy portfolio standards: The good, the bad, and the ugly in a two
state comparison. Energy Policy 2014, 67, 543–551, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.075.
13. Tra, C.I. Have renewable portfolio standards raised electricity rates? Evidence from US electric utilities.
Cont. Econ. Policy 2016, 34, 184–189, doi:10.1111/coep.12110.
14. Gürkan, G.; Langestraat, R. Modeling and analysis of renewable energy obligations and technology bandings
in the UK electricity market. Energy Policy 2014, 70, 85–95, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.022.
15. Oak, N.; Lawson, D.; Champneys, A. Performance comparison of renewable incentive schemes using optimal
control. Energy 2014, 64, 44–57, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.11.038.
16. Girish, G.P.; Sashikala, P.; Supra, B.; Acharya, A. Renewable energy certificate trading through power
exchanges in India. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2015, 5, 805–808.
17. Amrutha, A.A.; Balachandra, P.; Mathirajan, M. Role of targeted policies in mainstreaming renewable
energy in a resource constrained electricity system: A case study of Karnataka electricity system in India.
Energy Policy 2017, 106, 48–58, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.044.
18. Sun, P.; Nie, P. A comparative study of feed-in tariff and renewable portfolio standard policy in renewable
energy industry. Renew. Energy 2015, 74, 255–262, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.08.027.
19. Dusonchet, L.; Telaretti, E. Comparative economic analysis of support policies for solar PV in the most
representative EU countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 986–998, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.054.
20. Lyu, H.; Li, H.; Wallin, F.; Xv, B. Research on Chinese Solar photovoltaic development based on green-trading
mechanisms in power system by using a system dynamics model. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 3960–3965,
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.054.
21. Government 24. Available online: https://www.gov.kr/portal/ntnadmNews/1279625 (accessed on 3 April 2018).
22. Choi, Y.K. A study on power generation analysis of floating PV system considering environmental impact.
Int. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 2014, 8, 75–84, doi:10.14257/ijseia.2014.8.1.07.
23. New·Renewable Energy Center in the Korea Energy Management Corporation. Available online: http://www.
knrec.or.kr/business/rps_guide.aspx (accessed on 3 April 2018).
24. Yadav, N.; Gupta, M.; Sudhakar, K. Energy assessment of floating photovoltaic system. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Electrical Power and Energy Systems (ICEPES), Bhopal, India,
14–16 December 2016; pp. 264–269.
25. Ho, C.J.; Chou, W.; Lai, C. On improvement rates for renewable energy technologies: Solar PV, wind turbines,
capacitors, and batteries. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 89, 862–872, doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2014.10.039.
26. Cazzaniga, R.; Cicu, M.; Rosa-Clot, M.; Rosa-Clot, P.; Tina, G.M.; Ventura, C. Floating photovoltaic
plants: Performance analysis and design solutions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 81, 1730–1741,
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.269.
27. Kim, S.H.; Yoon, S.J.; Choi, W. Design and Construction of 1 MW Class Floating PV Generation Structural
System Using FRP Members. Energies 2017, 10, 1142, doi:10.3390/en10081142.
28. Ferrer-Gisbert, C.; Ferrán-Gozálvez, J.J.; Redón-Santafé, M.; Ferrer-Gisbert, P.; Sánchez-Romero, F.J.;
Torregrosa-Soler, J.B. A new photovoltaic floating cover system for water reservoirs. Renew. Energy 2013, 60,
63–70, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.04.007.
29. Yoo, J.H.; Kim, S.H.; An, D.J.; Choi, W.C.; Yoon, S.J. Generation Efficiency of Tracking Type Floating PV
Energy Generation Structure Using Fiber Reinforced Polymer Plastic (FRP) Members. Key Eng. Mater.
2017, 730, 212–217, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.730.212.
30. Kim, D.U.; Cho, M.H.; Kim, H.S.; Shin, D.S.; Ryu, K.H.; Kim, C.H. Design and A Safety Analysis and
Assessment of a Grounding System according to International Standards. J. Korean Inst. Illum. Electr.
Install. Eng. 2015, 29, 54–59, doi:10.5207/JIEIE.2015.29.10.054.
31. National Law Information Center. Available online: http://www.law.go.kr/lsStmdInfoP.do?lsiSeq=172223
(accessed on 3 April 2018).
Energies 2018, 11, 982 16 of 16

32. Ko, J.W.; Cha, H.L.; Kim, D.K.-S.; Lim, J.R.; Kim, G.G.; Bhang, B.G.; Won, C.S.; Jung, H.S.; Kang, D.H.;
Ahn, H.K. Safety Analysis of Grounding Resistance with Depth of Water for Floating PVs. Energies 2017, 10,
1304, doi:10.3390/en10091304.
33. Gil, H.J.; Kim, D.O.; Choi, C.S. Research on Assessment of Potential Interference between Individual
Grounding Electrodes Using an Electrolytic Tank Modeling Method. J. Korean Inst. Illum. Electr. Install. Eng.
2008, 22, 27–33, doi:10.5207/JIEIE.2008.22.3.027.
34. Tagg, G.F. Measurement of earth-electrode resistance with particular reference to earth-electrode systems
covering a large area. Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng. 1964, 111, 2118–2130, doi:10.1049/piee.1964.0341.
35. Campbell, R.B.; Bower, C.A.; Richards, L.A. Change of electrical conductivity with temperature and the
relation of osmotic pressure to electrical conductivity and Ion concentration for soil Extracts1. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 1949, 13, 66–69.
36. Tagg, G.F. Earth Resistances; Pitman Publishing Corporation: New York, NY, USA, 1964; p. 106.
37. Dawalibi, F.; Mukhedkar, D. Multi step analysis of interconnected grounding electrodes. IEEE Trans. Power
App. Syst. 1976, 95, 113–119.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).